Spencer, Myers look to quash lease for $19 million hatchery project

Two Pensacola city council members are leading the charge to stop the $19 million Gulf Coast Marine Fisheries Hatchery & Enhancement Center from moving forward at the long-vacant city-owned property known as Bruce Beach.

Council president Brian Spencer and councilwoman Sherri Myers are asking the council to declare the state’s lease of the property null and void, arguing that construction on the project hasn’t commenced on schedule.

That’s the same argument that developer Quint Studer, who owns property adjacent to the site, has made in recent weeks. Both city and state officials contend that the lease is valid and the construction process is underway, with permits secured. State officials last week advertised for bids for construction of the project.

The overgrown Bruce Beach site has sat vacant for decades. (Special to The Pulse)

At issue is the Bruce Beach property — a small patch of potentially-contamined land next door to a tank farm, once used for shipbuilding and later as a recreational area for black Pensacolians during segregation. The site has been vacant since the 1970s, when safety concerns prompted the closure of the recreational area and officials planned to use the site for a tuna cannery that never materialized.

Since then, the property has become overgrown, used as a homeless camp and dumping ground. The $18.8 million budget for the project — fully funded by fines paid by BP in the wake of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill — the project budget includes funding to clean up the property and construct a marine research center, with plans to restore public access to Bruce Beach for the first time in decades. In addition to walking paths, a pedestrian bridge over Washerwoman’s Creek would connect to the Community Maritime Park next door.

Both Myers and Spencer voted in support of the project when it was originally approved by the city council back in 2011. Myers changed positions by 2014, voting against the lease for the project, though Spencer supported it at the time. Studer also advocated for the project, writing a public letter of support in 2014.

“Even if the hatchery does not work out, the worst-case scenario is that the city has remediated land which is safe and open to the public for enjoyment and learning,” Studer said at the time. “This is far better than what is in place today.”

Spencer has suggested moving the hatchery to the Port of Pensacola, though it’s unclear whether that’s a viable option. More than $1 million has been spent on design and engineering fees to tailor the project to the Bruce Beach site.

“At this time, we are not considering other locations as our contract is valid,” Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission spokeswoman Susan Smith said last week.

Bruce Beach. (Drew Buchanan/The Pulse)

Nonetheless, Spencer is asking council members to explore buying out the Florida Department of Transportation’s interest in the Port’s administration building, which was constructed using FDOT dollars in 1999. It’s unclear whether that building would be suitable to house the marine research center, though there likely wouldn’t be enough land on the port site to accommodate the project’s wetlands component and other public amenities.

“Relocation is my goal,” Spencer said Wednesday. “I never supported the diminished use of Bruce Beach for a hatchery unless it created a significant number of jobs and was the funding vehicle that provided exciting, attractive infrastructure additions and improvements that could be enjoyed by the public. Fast forward to today versus yesterday’s promises … the jobs aren’t there, and the project’s public amenities are a fraction of what we anticipated. Today’s bid package deviates too significantly from the initial FWC sales pitch.”

The Bruce Beach property, seen here in 2011, abuts the TransMontaigne tank farm. (City of Pensacola/Special to The Pulse)

Spencer encouraged Mayor Ashton Hayward, a strong proponent of building the project on the Bruce Beach site, to join him in supporting relocation.

“Our Mayor should jump on the voided lease status and secure a new location at the port,” Spencer said. “He still can be the champion of this project. In fact, I think this is an ideal time for him to show strong leadership skills while exercising his ability to maneuver through the gauntlet of bureaucracy.”

Pensacola city council members are set to discuss the hatchery lease at their regular meeting on November 9.

13 Responses

From an outsider’s perspective, I’d be very skeptical and suspicious of Council president Brian Spencer and councilwoman Sherri Myers reasoning for their reversals. I’d be more concerned as to why why they have changed their positions and not so much as to why the project has been delayed

Something is not right! They are wanting to grab up that land for other reasons not being stated! This is real fishie, if you ask me! Makes me think, something is going on behind the seen, thats not being told to us! I wiuldnt trust any of them! Reminds me of the pot of stew and the county Commissioners! Better keep your eyes on this one folk! They are wanting to stop it real bad all of a sudden! I wonder who owns the land across the street! I would look there first! Then I think you will get your answer! Just a thought!

Derek, when are you going to grow up and start being a real journalist instead of being just a mouthpiece for a select group of Pensacola business men? If you had done your journalistic duties by researching the facts as I have, you would understand that opponents of the Bruce beach site are merely asking that the City follow its own CRA 2010 recommendations for the development of the land. And by the way, as of yet, no monies have been secured for the public access portion of this project. Please understand how Governmental construction projects work, no money, no construction. The other point that Informed citizens are asking for is simple respect for the law. They expect our council to abide by the laws of the land. This includes respecting the terms of lease agreements, proper bidding procedures for city owned land, and following their own legal procedures when deciding specific leases for city property. I would hope that even Attorney Bob Kerrigan would understand these basic principles. You should be thanking council members Spencer and Meyers for their understanding that many mistakes have been made with regards to this whole hatchery project. It takes courage to pubicly admit ones mistakes and real leadership to push forward with better ideas that will enhance, not detract from the development of our expanding and beautiful downtown environment.

The project does actually conform to the CRA plan, as it was planned and designed with the CRA plan in mind. This is document throughout the planning and public input process than took place nearly 5 years ago.

Simply said, the project provides access to the property through the Baywalk Demonstration Site nature trails and boardwalk that will route through the marshlands on the property, just as suggested in the CRA plan. That portion of the project is fully funded, FWC confirmed to us this week. Even more, UWF is partnering with FWC on this project to extend the Maritime Heritage Trail to the property, creating an uninterrupted history and cultural education trail from the Historic Village to Bruce Beach. That is also being fully funded by FWC, officials confirmed to us this week. Additionally, the project will include “a bridge over Washerwomen’s creek that will connect the site to Maritime Park,” FWC officials confirmed to us this week.

I’m not sure where you learned that these amenities aren’t funded, but those rumors are false, FWC has confirmed to us.

Also, regarding the lease, both parties on the lease (the city per Mayor Hayward and FWC executive leadership) have stated they agree it is not void. The issue now is one of a technical legal nature — whether the city council has the authority to void the lease unilaterally.

Thank you for following. If you have any questions, please let us know and we can answer them or we can get answers to you.

Here you go. The FACTS. Jerry Holzworth and I started this discussion because we felt that the lease had been voided by the FWC. We were never approached by anyone to initiate our quest. I am sick and tired of the folks that are always looking for ulterior motives for someone’s actions. You folks at the PULSE never talked to either one of us to find out what motivated us to make our comments during the Boyd Forum at a City Council Meeting. Why? Oh wait! I know. I am such a simple stupid person that I could not possibly be taking action as a citizen to ensure that the public doesn’t get screwed by our local government and the State. This Lease is VOID. I didn’t do anything to derail this project other than point out the obvious. I guess we’ll have to have a judge tell us what the terms of the lease mean. Come on by and chat. I would love to have the opportunity to tell you the truth about my involvement in this mess. If you do come, please bring facts to support your opinions. That would make my day.

Dan, respectfully, we were unaware of your comments until the recent issues were brought up regarding the lease (a lot of people speak at Boyd Forums). We’ve been following the project since its approval in 2014 (before The Pulse existed) and do not recall any opposition to the project from you. We’d be happy to talk with you any time. Please email me at 850-259-7894 or at [email protected] and we can arrange a meeting.

That said, regarding the lease, both parties on the lease (the city per Mayor Hayward and FWC executive leadership) have stated they agree it is not void. The issue now is one of a technical legal nature — whether the city council has the authority to void the lease unilaterally.

The fish hatchery near where people liven work and play was never good idea. Folks in the Tanyard still spell methane gas everyday from the ECUA lift station. We don’t need the gaging smell from fish and the recycled materials involved in producing generic modified fish.
The orginal 2010 CRA layout has public access to the marvelous marsh and wetlands…
The port is a very good alternative and not next to homes and businesses.
A win-win.

Gloria, to be clear, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has repeatedly said there will be no smell emitted from the facility or property, as all fish culture is sealed within the lab itself. All effluent is treated on site before being discharged into open water.

Additionally, the project does conform to the CRA plan, as it provides access to the property through the Baywalk Demonstration Site nature trails and boardwalk that will route through the marshlands on the property. That portion of the project is fully funded, FWC confirmed to us this week.

Drew, seriously… “officals said it won’t sink”.. do some homework. If I only had a nickel evertime an “enviromental official” told flat out lies.. bam.. I would buy the property myself.
This piece of property is a center piece for African-American History. It is important to hold on to that history ( see American Beach).
If that property was the landing site for a confederate ship… it would already have a moment.

Clearly, pulling a construction permit doesn’t constitute the “commencement of construction” and the “plain language” reading of the lease states that absent the commencement of construction the lease is void. Also, the facts of bids requests last week is clear evidence of no construction on the site. The first phase of “construction” for this site is clearing and grubbing of the land – there is no debate and plenty of evidence that this has not occurred as such clearing and grubbing of the site is part of the bid package. This is another one of the Mayor’s “smoke and mirrors” trying to create “alternative facts” to reality – and further evidence of his incompetence in trying to run ANY development project within the City.